Eh, won't happen in my opinion. Both SFO and LAX have their merits as gateways. There is no denying the population and economy of Southern California. That alone will keep LAX as the west coast's primary gateway to the world. With that being said there is enough international traffic on the west coast to support sustained growth at SFO. UA's hub in SFO (which is far more developed as an international gateway than their LAX hub) is making it appear to have better conenctions across the Pacific and yes, QF, NZ have added new flights in recent times. But it wasn't at the expense of LAX. The article makes it seem that LAX is hemorraging tourist dollars to SFO and I have my doubts that is truly happening.

Both are significant markets in of themselves in spite of being located in the same state, along the same coast, only 350 miles apart.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 1):Eh, won't happen in my opinion. Both SFO and LAX have their merits as gateways. There is no denying the population and economy of Southern California. That alone will keep LAX as the west coast's primary gateway to the world. With that being said there is enough international traffic on the west coast to support sustained growth at SFO. UA's hub in SFO (which is far more developed as an international gateway than their LAX hub) is making it appear to have better conenctions across the Pacific and yes, QF, NZ have added new flights in recent times. But it wasn't at the expense of LAX. The article makes it seem that LAX is hemorraging tourist dollars to SFO and I have my doubts that is truly happening.

Both are significant markets in of themselves in spite of being located in the same state, along the same coast, only 350 miles apart.

Agree with you 100%. Even though I am an SFO boy, LA and Southern Calif has a much larger base to pull from. It is like comparing apples to oranges. SFO might pick up a few extra carriers over the next few years but will never surpass LAX in numbers. When NZ and QF announced their routes to SFO, they used the term, SFO as an alternative to LAX as a point of entry. Nothing to worry about LAX

Well LAX is a hub for UA, and a very large station for both DL and AA, not to mention AS as well. I would think that it has better connecting opportunities than SFO, which is a UA hub and the other carriers mainly serve their hubs.

However, SFO is a more convenient connecting point as it's closer to Asia. Connecting to Asia flights in LAX is kind of like going through MIA on your way to Europe - kind of out of the way for many.

As noted, SFO is UA's hub and UA is one of the two major US trans-Pacific carriers (NW being the other). So Star carriers like NH and SQ are more likely to choose SFO then LAX if they want more then just O&D traffic.

However, AA has a huge hub in LAX and that pulls from fellow OneWorld carriers CX, JL and QF. So those carriers will want service to LAX over SFO for non-O&D traffic.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 6):Quoting RwSEA (Reply 3):
However, SFO is a more convenient connecting point as it's closer to Asia.

There's not much of a difference in distance.

SFO used to get much more international traffic from the northern California area. But nowadays there are plenty of flights to Mexico from nearby airports. Many years ago (from personal experience) it was cheaper to get an international flight from SFO. Now it is cheaper overall to fly from your local airport, referring to SMF now.

But I don't see SFO and LAX ever competing. First of all, they are 400 miles apart, and very different cities.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 7):SFO used to get much more internationalrntraffic from the northern California area. But nowadays there arernplenty of flights to Mexico from nearby airports. Many years ago (fromrnpersonal experience) it was cheaper to get an international flight fromrnSFO. Now it is cheaper overall to fly from your local airport,rnreferring to SMF now.

I live in Sacramento and every time I fly international whichrnis quite often, I prefer to drive down to SFO instead of flying out ofrnSMF and connecting in another major city. That saves me time overallrnsince it's an hour and a half's drive to SFO. If I was flying to Mexicornthough, I'd fly out of SMF.

Quoting Legacyins (Reply 2):Agree with you 100%. Even though I am an SFO boy, LA and Southern Calif has a much larger base to pull from. It is like comparing apples to oranges. SFO might pick up a few extra carriers over the next few years but will never surpass LAX in numbers. When NZ and QF announced their routes to SFO, they used the term, SFO as an alternative to LAX as a point of entry. Nothing to worry about LAX

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 1):Eh, won't happen in my opinion. Both SFO and LAX have their merits as gateways. There is no denying the population and economy of Southern California. That alone will keep LAX as the west coast's primary gateway to the world. With that being said there is enough international traffic on the west coast to support sustained growth at SFO. UA's hub in SFO (which is far more developed as an international gateway than their LAX hub) is making it appear to have better conenctions across the Pacific and yes, QF, NZ have added new flights in recent times. But it wasn't at the expense of LAX. The article makes it seem that LAX is hemorraging tourist dollars to SFO and I have my doubts that is truly happening.

Very well put guys. LAX and SFO play differnt roles in the Aviation industry. LAX is more of an O&D station. The LA area is much more populated than the Bay Area. The international airlines probably would be inclined to choose LAX over SFO because there is more O&D here to every part of the world. However, I (being a die-hard-born and raised in Los Angeles boy) will be the first to admit that SFO is more organized and makes for an easier connection point. If I was traveling from some place like AUS, IAH, DFW, ATL, etc. and I had to choose an airport to make a connection in, it would be SFO hands down. SFO is a walk in the park to make a connection in whereas LAX is pure chaos. LAX will always take the upper hand as far as the foreign flag carriers are concerned. I do understand why SFO is UA's major hub to Asia though. Why compete with airlines like China Eastern and China Southern in Los Angeles when you can compete competition free in San Francisco in a nicer airport that is well organized (as far as a connecting hub is concerned, O&D aside).

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 8):I live in Sacramento and every time I fly international whichrnis quite often, I prefer to drive down to SFO instead of flying out ofrnSMF and connecting in another major city. That saves me time overallrnsince it's an hour and a half's drive to SFO. If I was flying to Mexicornthough, I'd fly out of SMF.

But Mexico flights are quite popular, so it has taken some market out of SFO. But it is not the clear-cut decision of several years back, when driving to SFO was almost a must for international travel in the N. Cali. area.

SFO is offering to cut landing fees in half for carriers starting new service to international markets

LAX has lost 12% of its departures since 2000.

Jet Airways to start SFO-PVG-BOM service this fall

LAX has 2 A380 gates, which require a tow in. At SFO, 6 gates can handle the A380 without any fuss.

In 1998, LAX had 3 flights to Asia for each flight SFO had. This year, LAX exceeds SFO by only 2 to 1.

LAX has lower landing fees. $6 versus $14 at SFO

LAX began a US$723 million upgrade to the international terminal which won%u2019t be done for 3 years and won't enlarge the building.

SFO has a gleaming US$1 Billion, 6 year old international terminal with twice as many gates, floor-to-ceiling windows, restaurants and boarding-area seating for hundreds of passengers.

Travel wholesalers prefer to bring foreign visitors through SFO rather than use outmoded, overcrowded LAX.

Traffic between LAX and NRT has plunged 33% since 2000.

United has cut 1/3 of its international departures at LAX

LAX officials say San Francisco International Airport may soon eclipse LAX as the highly coveted premier gateway to the Pacific Rim. This could endanger the $4 billion a year that international visitors pump into the Southland's economy.

People who live near LAX are ecstatic that international traffic at LAX has plunged 12% since 2000 and are working to reduce flight further.

Quote:Since 2000, service from LAX to Tokyo has plummeted 33%, for example. United Airlines slashed one out of every three nonstop weekly international departures, while more than doubling service at hubs in Denver, Chicago and Washington.

On that point, at least, I can imagine the glut of carriers serving that route shows that it isn't as profitable as it could be. Varig flew GRU-LAX-NRT, as did TG, SQ, and KE in addition to both American and Japanese carriers.

Quote:Not everyone is unhappy with the decline in international business at LAX, particularly critics who want to see the facility's growth limited, if not reversed.

"The bottom line, as far as the general residency are concerned, is that they are very happy to see as many flights go elsewhere — the more the merrier," said Roy Hefner, a Westchester resident who is on an airport committee that studies noise and other issues.

God, I HATE NIMBY's!!!!!!!!! May their version of an afterlife be a slum house next to the Devil's own person non-hush kitted Boeing 707 water-tanker Astrojet that does daily touch-and-go landings!! Who in the h*** moves to Los Angeles, specifically west L.A., to get AWAY from people? Did their realtor blindfold them and make them think they were in Carmel?

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 14):God, I HATE NIMBY's!!!!!!!!! May their version of an afterlife be a slum house next to the Devil's own person non-hush kitted Boeing 707 water-tanker Astrojet that does daily touch-and-go landings!! Who in the h*** moves to Los Angeles, specifically west L.A., to get AWAY from people? Did their realtor blindfold them and make them think they were in Carmel?

Youre right. That Guy is an idiot. I have lived in West LA for a very long time and I will tell you, we arent short on people. I live in El Segundo (practially next door to LAX) and I will tell you that there are alot of people who work at the airport here. The more flights we get here, the better the job economy at LAX. If they want to be alone, tell them the can sell their house in Westchester for one million dollars and buy the western half of Kansas. They can feel alone there.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):United also operated under Chapter 11 protection for 3 years. They haven't done all that many smart things lately.

LAX is UA's bastard step child (so to speak). We are always passed up in favor of ORD and SFO for everything with UA.

I think the issue is less about LAX vs. SFO than LAX vs. NIMBYs. LAX is a terrible facility and TBIT is considered to be one of the worst terminals in the world but its vast O&D still makes it a desirable destination. Most people in the Los Angeles area want LAX improved, except for a vocal group near the airport, the ones who bought homes there because it was cheap due to noise from the airport.

The NIMBYs want traffic levels at LAX to stay flat or even decline. Traffic will have to bypass LAX by necessity. SFO has its NIMBYs too and they have stalled on fixing the runway issues. Delays have been reduced due to UA's decline, but the weather problems persist and major delays will return.

His point was that all A380s likely to be in commercial use by end of 2008 could simultaneously arrive or depart from SFO whereas at LAX they would have to queue resulting a significant inconvenience for their operators. SFO is clealry superior.

Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 18):His point was that all A380s likely to be in commercial use by end of 2008 could simultaneously arrive or depart from SFO whereas at LAX they would have to queue resulting a significant inconvenience for their operators. SFO is clealry superior.

Again, so what. The A380 isn't the be all, end all. The 748I and 77W fit into LAX very well

SFO--because of its excellent newer International Terminal (Concourses A and G)--will likely get more A380 traffic than LAX. Expect SQ, LH, VS and possibly KE to fly their A388's to SFO by 2012. Due to TBIT limitations at LAX, the only airline that will fly the A388 to LAX will probably be QF.

I find it interesting that so little has been said of the silent sleeper--- HNL, which for a good part of the early '00s, was actually ahead of SFO in nonstop seats to Asia (proper) to claim the title of #2 USA gateway.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):I find it interesting that so little has been said of the silent sleeper--- HNL

Not much has been said about HNL becuase the thread is about LAX and SFO. Even so, HNL's days as a gateway between the West Coast and Asia are over. I see SEA taking a larger role in tomorrow's USA-Asia marketplace than HNL.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 20):SFO--because of its excellent newer International Terminal (Concourses A and G)--will likely get more A380 traffic than LAX.

Why? LAX gets 20 million more passengers per year than SFO? Regardless of what we believe, the LA basin gets far more people flying than the Bay Area.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 21):HNL, which for a good part of the early '00s, was actually ahead of SFO in nonstop seats to Asia (proper) to claim the title of #2 USA gateway.

IIRC, the currency climate at that time made the vacation cost for the typical Japanese be cheaper in the US. Plus, the number of nonstop destinations that have opened since the early 90's is nothing but outstanding.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 20):SFO--because of its excellent newer International Terminal (Concourses A and G)--will likely get more A380 traffic than LAX.

Dream on my friend. Not only will LAX be ready for whatever airline decides to bring the A380, but it will be ready on time.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 20):Expect SQ, LH, VS and possibly KE to fly their A388's to SFO by 2012. Due to TBIT limitations at LAX, the only airline that will fly the A388 to LAX will probably be QF.

Do you honestly believe that? Sure SQ will bring the A380 to SFO and LH probably will at some point as well. But SQ will probably fly it to LAX as well. To better explain myself:

1) Los Angeles is several times the size of San Francisco.
2) LAX has much more O&D as well as total traffic that SFO does.
3) LAX has more flights to every single area of the world than SFO does.

If SFO were really going to see the bulk of the A380's on the west coast, the gap between the airports would not be so large in terms of traffic, total flights, and airlines that serve here. Dont get me wrong, I love SFO and its a wonderful airport to connect in (better than LAX). However, it wont make up for the fact that LAX is a much larger market and no matter what, more people and airlines come here.

It is what it is...

25 Sllevin
: Believe me, the NIMBY's up here make the LAX folks look like A.net spotters! No way will they allow SFO to grow. Steve

26 EVA777SEA
: So how exactly does KE go from 4 772s per week to A388s at SFO?

27 ConcordeBoy
: Um, actually this thread is about the #1 USA gateway to Asia. And seeing as SFO was, and could possibly still be, long the nation's tertiary such gat

28 Brons2
: SFO's never going to be a serious contender until they fix their runway problems. It's a problem for international as well as domestic traffic. I have